Dear Subscriber,

As with most industries over the past 2 years, recruitment has been hit hard by the recession. We hoped, as did many of our clients, that this would see an end to the sharks of this industry, that they would swim off into waters new. We hoped that the remaining recruiters would operate ethically and with a high degree of integrity. We hoped therefore that our series of articles on ‘lifting the lid’ would become obsolete in this new era of cleansed recruitment practices.

But no - just like the City financial practices that brought the country to its knees – lessons have not been learned and unethical, wide-boy practices have returned. And so has our series of articles. In turn we hope that by educating and exposing these practices that our client base will be better prepared and able to spot the sharks in the waters, ending once and for all these practices.

When is an introduction an introduction?

It’s a very common misconception that whichever agency sends the CV first, that the client is then contractually bound to see that candidate via said agency.

In-line with unethical practices, many agencies are simply now advertising a vacancy and then immediately forwarding the CV to the client. They do this in the hope that their CV’s land first so they can argue it constitutes an introduction. It does not.

An introduction occurs when you interview the candidate and not before this point.

I make this point as we are hearing of an ever increasing amount of candidates that are being sent to clients without their prior consent. The client then feels compelled to interview via this agency and the candidates feel effectively ‘hoodwinked’ into attending.

If you receive a CV without requesting it, or you are informed the candidate was not aware that their details were sent to you, you are not contractually bound to see this candidate via this agency. The choice as they say is yours; choose the ethical recruiter or the unethical recruiter?

Not much of a choice, is it?

If you have any questions on recruitment practices you would like answering, please feel free to email me direct.

Mark Ions - Managing Director

With a number of world leaders based in the North of England, the IT and Technology sector is one which is particularly strong in the region, both academically and commercially.

In our regular reviews of salaries, it is also the industry which regularly brings up averages towards the top end of the scale for HR professionals. This month, we are focusing on the sector and average salaries across the board.

Our findings are drawn from a large candidate database of HR professionals operating in a wide range of IT/Technology companies, from household names through to SME’s and these are the average salaries that we have found:

HR Administrator £15,500
HR Assistant £21,000
HR Officer £21,250
HR Advisor £26,200
HR Manager £35,800
HR Business Partner £49,300
HR Director £69,200

We are delighted to announce that our in depth end of year salary survey, highlighting salaries across all industries and levels of seniority is AVAILABLE NOW. To receive a free e-copy, please e-mail our Senior Consultant Gareth Harrison or call 0191 2155 400/0113 243 0900.

Annual Employment Law Update - presented by Eversheds, in conjunction with Exclusive Human Resources.

12th January 2010 - 6pm for 6.30pm - St James Park, Newcastle upon Tyne

Come and join us for our annual look at recent employment law developments and forthcoming changes to watch out for.

Attendance & Parking is free

To book this event or for further information, please email or call our central point of contact - Lisa Stephenson on 0845 497 6132 or at lisastephenson@eversheds.com.

Each month we run a series entitled 'HR Doctor' where we invite one of our HR Consultants, Fiona Ward from our HR Consultancy Division to answer a series of HR related questions.

Q: We are increasingly finding the need for a company policy on Facebook and other social networking sites. We've so far had a fairly liberal approach but it seems we need to review this as many employees are now using it too much. What is the best way to address this?

A: This is a tricky one as businesses are now beginning to understand the marketing potential of such communication tools and it can smack of hypocrisy if organisations are using it to promote their brand but banning employees from accessing it.

Therefore I would still recommend a light touch approach. If you have a Code of Conduct or an IT usage policy cover social networking within that. State you do not discourage such activity but it must be restricted to during break times. It's also worth saying staff should avoid making derogatory statements about the organisation that could bring it into disrepute, or about individuals within the organisation.

It is important to work with your IT support department/provider; by the nature of it operations Facebook and Twitter (the newest kid on the block) are not secure. Identity theft is very easy due to the lack of control of the various 'applications' that run under Facebook. IT teams need to look at the susceptibility of their systems as the user can enable an application in Facebook which uses Internet Explorer in a way that most IT teams will not be able to manage the security of.

On a personal note I would ban Facebook only because my friend is beating me by 101 points on the Scrabble application!

Truly bespoke to your business – Exclusive Human Resources offer two levels of HR consultancy – you choose which fits your business requirements best:

ONE: HR OUTSOURCING: We become your HR department – offering you complete HR support with full legal cover against Industrial Tribunal claims.

TWO: TURN ON/TURN OFF HR SOLUTION: We offer a non contractual turn on/turn off HR solution across a wide range of projects. We work in partnership with you to determine the best approach for each individual assignment.

To have an informal, no obligation discussion about your requirements, please call 0191 2155 400 or 0113 243 0900. Alternatively, please check out our dedicated HR Consultancy Services website page.

To read Fiona's profile please click here. 

Working in partnership to keep you updated.

HR Business Partner (1088) £30,000 - £35,000 - Darlington

We are delighted to be working with a global market leader in the recruitment of an HR Business Partner to their dynamic and progressive HR team. Providing a Business Partnering Service to a distinct directorate within the organisation, you will be heavily involved in key project work and will be given targets to drive the business forward.

To read more - Click Here

Interim HR Officer (1089) £24,000 - £25,000 - Newcastle

Our client, a major North East based business requires an experienced HR Officer for an immediate start for an interim contract of around 3 months. The role will involve caseload management in a busy department and the successful candidate will need to have sufficient experience to hit the ground running from day one.

To read more, Click Here

Click here to review all live vacancies

Written Exclusively for 'HR News & Views':

Self Employed or Not Self Employed

The issue of determining employment status has once again reached the Court of Appeal, and it’s not good news for Employers.

In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others, a group of 20 car valeters were retained under terms and conditions that stated them to be self-employed. The valeters had been recruited through advertisements asking for self-employed people and engaged under contracts which described them as 'subcontractors'. The contracts contained clauses whereby the valeters could supply substitutes to carry out valeting on their behalf and also provided that no valeter was under an obligation to provide his or her services on any particular occasion. They were offered no guarantee of work.

The valeters lodged claims seeking a declaration that they were either workers or employees. They also claimed unpaid wages and holiday pay. The employment tribunal found that the substitution and obligation clauses did not reflect the reality of the relationship; the valeters were fully integrated into the business and subject to Autoclenz’s control. As a consequence, they were employees.

Autoclenz appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed with the Company, holding that the tribunal had not been entitled to go behind the terms of a written agreement that defined the claimants as self-employed subcontractors. The tribunal could only look behind the express terms of a contract where both parties had intended the contract to paint a false picture. The employees appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal overturned the EAT decision. In line with previous case law, the court held that a tribunal must consider whether or not the words of the written contract represent the true intentions or expectations of the parties not only at the inception of the contract but at any later stage, where the evidence shows that the parties have expressly or impliedly varied the agreement between them. In the instant case, the facts supported the tribunal's original conclusion that no one seriously expected the valeters to provide a substitute and that they were expected to turn up every day to do the work provided. The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that there was the necessary mutuality of obligation to determine that the valeters were workers and the necessary control to establish that they were employees.

The moral of the story: if you describe them as self employed then treat them as self employed otherwise you’re stuck with employees you never really wanted. 

For further information call Jonathon Stokes or Barry Hutchinson, specialist Employment solicitors at Gordon Brown Associates on 0191 230 8103.